Does David Axelrod's Ability to Deliver a Message Concern Anyone Else?

[thecentristword]

David M. Axelrod is an American political consultant based in Chicago, Illinois. He was a top political adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as campaign adviser to President Barack Obama during Obama's successful run for Presidency. Wikipedia

I have seen David speak on several occasions and I generally agree with him, but if he has been the person at the center of 'messaging' for the President - he had failed miserably. I would argue that the president hasn't successfully delivered any messages so far - even on things that should have been a slam dunk.

It is almost as if he (David) think being right is enough to win an argument and to deliver a message. What the GOP has shown us time and time again is that you don't even have to remain in the realm of truth or reality to win an argument - i.e. death panels, Obama is a Muslim, Obama wasn't born in America, etc. etc. etc.

Every GOP member in the House voted YES on the Ryan Plan which would transform Medicare into a voucher program - we should be talking GOP extinction, not a close election?????

Is it just me?

[jberryhill]

1. "i.e. death panels, Obama is a Muslim, Obama wasn't born in America"

Can you remind me which of your example "arguments" they've "won"?

[Warren Stupidity]

2. the 2010 election would be one example. nt.

[jberryhill]

3. And Axelrod's role in that was...?

I do not understand how your reply advances the thesis of the OP.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. you asked when the republicans have been successful with their messaging.

Axelrod was not part of the question you asked.

[jberryhill]

6. Ah... Thread troubles.

Since I normally do not post fully referenced dissertations in threads, I generally take it for granted to be assumed that a "reply", as such, is in some manner responsive to the subject matter set forth in the OP. Reading replies with this in mind might assist one in developing an understanding of context and/or limiting assumptions necessary to understanding the scope of a reply.

For example, if someone were to post "I like Brussels Sprouts" and I were to reply "I don't like them," then it would be an error to take that reply out of context and apply it to mean a general and universal dislike of any and all things.

I did not ask when Republicans have been successful with their messaging, and my question, including the phrase "your examples" was addressed to the examples of claimed failures of Mr. Axelrod's.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. What?

"i.e. death panels, Obama is a Muslim, Obama wasn't born in America"

Can you remind me which of your example "arguments" they've "won"?

So "they've" in your above message, the entire contents of which are posted, refers to Axelrod? No. It. Doesn't.

I did not ask when Republicans have been successful with their messaging, and my question, including the phrase "your examples" was addressed to the examples of claimed failures of Mr. Axelrod's.

Um, yes you did.

Have a nice day.

[pscot]

10. His role was non-exisrent

Which sort of drives home the point, wouldn't you think? People want to be told what to think. Large numbers of voters will believe what they're told. This has been amply demonstraed time and again, and is the basis for the Republicans' political success. Yet the Democrats, and the President especially, seem unable to learn this simple, basic fact of human nature.

[thecentristword]

15. none

I said that hadn't won any

[Arkana]

5. David Axelrod's one of the best political strategists of our time

but his message will only reach those who haven't decided he's a liberal commie pinko.

And they haven't won the arguments on most of those things--they're just shouting really loud. There's no majority that believes Obama is a Muslim or that death panels are really a thing.

[pscot]

11. Shouting really loud will win a lot of arguments

People are often willing to accept noisy assetions of conviction as fact. American voters are notoriously short on logic.

[frazzled]

7. So you want he should exit the "realm of truth or reality" to match the GOP's crazy bullhorn?

That would improve his messaging?

Be very careful when you decide to emulate what is wrong because it works. Bank robbers (sometimes) get away with a lot of money; it doesn't mean that's a good way to get rich. Maintaining a basis of ethics and morality is always necessary, in both life and politics. Once you abandon it, you've crossed the Rubicon.

[pscot]

12. Put "truth and reality" on your political banner

and march off into the political wilderness. Battles are won down in the mud. If you don't like to get dirty, choose anothe sport. Maybe beanbag.

[frazzled]

14. How wrong you are

Playing hardball is necessary. Abandoning truth and reality altogether for teh crazy (a la birtherism) is not acceptable. And it won't win you anything, except contempt and derision (at least if you're a Democrat).

The battle was won in 2008 without resorting to outright lies and unreality. Vague promises that were probably unachievable, sure; but note that the Obama campaign did not even once get down in the mud, as you put it, to attack the insane Sarah Palin.

[lamp_shade]

9. Uh... yea darlin... it's just you.

[emulatorloo]

13. No.